Phanta Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Children are largely dependent on their parents. They are incapable of surviving self-authoring for some years. Taking parents seriously is related to brain wiring. Abused children also take parents seriously. A child learns their way and, over time, comes into a greater and greater self-authority, until eventually each person is accountable for their own behavior. The husband - does he regard his wife as in authority over him? Collaborators. Will he seriously change his ways because of his wife's influence? Or do men regard themselves as in authority - and they will make changes that they see as vital only when they realize that they change out of love for their wife? Will she seriously change her ways because of her husband's influence? Yes in some areas and no in others. Mileage will vary on the details from couple to couple. People of both genders have some flexibility in some ares for change. Love may inspire them to see from another perspective, but love alone...that's tough. There usually has to be some sense or reason to the new behavior or system that tings true in the core self for true change to occur in either gender. But even then, would they not press that in the wife's love for him, she should change her attitude toward his behavior? Perhaps she may. And perhaps he changes his behavior a little and she changes her attitude a little, and they meet in the middle. Perhaps she is unmoved and he bends and changes his behavior, or he is unmoved and she changes her attitude. People are complicated. Who's ideas rule the day? Do they take turns? They each sometimes give and sometimes rule as equi-capable grown-ups. Do they seek arbitration from professionals? Perhaps. Sometimes it helps to confer with others to see new avenues and options. Who's ways are followed when agreement cannot be achieved? If agreement cannot be achieved and no one can bend sufficiently and arbitration doesn't work, then they have a bad time. That's going to happen anyway. Who has the ultimate responsibility? It depends, though most times responsibility is shared. Authority is to be exercised by love and concern. Love being a commitment of my will to the welfare of another. Ergo, God's instruction for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church - giving Himself up for her. Men tend to be selfish, and they take advantage of their wife's desire to please. So God commands men to be motivated primarily by selfless love. Women tend to be selfish. Women take advantage of their husband's desire to please. And some don't. The men, that is... And the women. I'll just call them humans. Humans have selfishness and a desire to please. This was written to a Greek culture wherein many wives were used for procreation and to manage the household, and the men had mistresses or courtesans for pleasure and relationships. Song of Solomon teaches man's affection to his wife. Are you arguing for cultural context? I can hang with that. But I'm not going to buy that it applies any longer, or that it is an ideal for all humankind forevermore. If you are arguing for cultural context, I would be interested in delving more deeply into this. Malachi denounces the practice of "trophy wives." Oh? Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayskidude Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Phanta, my bad - I am still talking about the specific incidence when the man convinces his fiance' to elope against her parents (esp Dad's) wishes. I'm thinking about the kind of man he is; that he would't take the time to win over the parents. I have seen a friend of mine make this effort with parents. It takes patience and proves character. So, I agree with many of your thots. The married couple should function as a harmonious team. And the occasion when Abigail delivered her husband Nabal and their property from sure destruction is a classic case of a wise and discerning woman taking charge of a situation to avert tragedy. But I maintain that ultimately the responsibility rests on the father/husband. Malachi denounces the practice of "trophy wives." Oh? Phanta 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Malachi 2:13–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. 'wife of your youth' refers to exactly that - the woman who cared for you and your children. God basically says; "Now when you're older (and she's older), and the kids are out of the house - now you want to divorce her, and pursue the trophy? Despicable - and you will experience God's judgement for such faithless behavior." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good. What OT rules are you referring to? The rules on Liverate marriage. The Law on this is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. It outlines circumstances in which the deceased man's brother is supposed to take the widow as his wife and have children with her so that the family name is carried out. The first born son is then considered to belong to the deceased so that the inheritance then goes to him. This is why Onan suffered a substantial penalty for early withdrawal in Genesis 38:8-10 (god killed him when he tried to pull out before he had an orgasm to keep his brother's widow from getting pregnant). Yes, this predates the law being given to Moses: it was already established in ancient Hebrew culture before it was codified in Deuteronomy. Further, the entire book of Ruth revolves around Liverate marriage. It is also recognized as an OT Law in the New Testament and referenced both in Matthew and in Luke. How do you conclude Paul has a disdain for sexuality? For those who are able to resist temptation, Paul advises celibacy and not getting married. He claims that although it is OK to marry if you need to avoid fornication, it is better to remain unmarried and celibate. It's all there in that same chapter: 1st Corinthians 7. If concern for harmony in Israelite homes is his motive, then how come Jepathat had to murder his own daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 11 because of his vow? Did that promote harmony in his home? Many Biblical scholars - given the context of the girl's gathering with her friends, conclude that Jephthah's daughter was kept a virgin throughout her life, not murdered. It is true that this claim is made, or at least I have heard this. As you say, the basis of the argument seems to be that she laments never being able to get married and have children. However, although I am not a Greek scholar nor have I read the Greek, in just about any English translation you can find, Judges 11:31 reads that whatever comes out of the doors of his house to meet him, he will sacrifice up "as a burnt offering." After she finished mourning and returned, it says that he did as he had vowed (which was established in 11:30-31). I have not personally heard an explanation of why it would clearly and unambiguously refer to a burnt offering in verse 31 when it really meant that his daughter was to become the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a Vestal Virgin. I think a satisfactory explanation of this should be required of those who say she wasn't killed because she lamented never being able to get married have children rather than lamenting her death per se. This seems especially so since it occurs the context of a culture where her entire worth rested on bearing sons, not to mention that never being able to experience life is a near universally common lament of those who find themselves dying uncommonly young. What this explanation does is make the story more palatable by allowing one to avoid confronting the idea that biblegod would allow such an atrocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 When Promises Cannot Be Kept The daughter of missionary parents had moved back to the United States from India. Now she had a serious boyfriend and was sure they would get married several years in the future, when they had finished their education. In her excitement the girl promised an Indian friend that she would be maid of honor at the wedding. The romance progressed much faster than expected, and the couple married less than a year later. At this point in their lives they had no money at all to fly the friend from India to participate in the wedding. So the bride wrote a letter of deep apology and had to ask another friend to be maid of honor. The Indian girl did not write back and never communicated with her again. What happens if you make a promise but then discover that you are not able to keep it? Such a scenario is a recipe for frustration and hurt feelings. If your promise is to the Lord, the situation is even more serious. Numbers 30 helps people get out of this kind of dilemma. To a modern reader the divine instructions in Numbers 30 could appear sexist. If a man or an independent woman (widowed or divorced) makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath, that person must absolutely keep his or her promise. However, the vow or oath of a young woman dwelling in her father’s house or of a wife living with her husband is subject to the approval of the father or husband on the day he first hears it. If he says nothing at that point, she is bound by her obligation. But if he objects and does not permit her to carry out the vow or oath, it releases her from her promise, and the Lord promises automatically to forgive her. It is only instance of forgiveness by statute in Israelite law. Is the Bible prejudices against women here? The fact that independent women are treated like men indicates that the issue is not simply gender. Rather, it is the social relationship between a woman and her father or husband, who has jurisdiction over her in the area of vows and oaths that could affect him. Israelite society regarded men as responsible for legal matters, including transactions involving property. So if a daughter or wife took a vow or oath regarding transfer of property, including to the Lord, she would likely need her man’s cooperation in order to fulfill her promise. If she put pressure on him to cooperate and he did so grudgingly, there could be resentment in the home. Should he refuse to cooperate, she would not be able to fulfill her vow, and would be guilty of a serious crime. God prevented these problems by releasing women from obligations if their men registered unwillingness to go along with them. “Any vow or any binding oath to deny herself, her husband may allow to stand, or her husband may nullify” (Num 30:13, NRSV). The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time. Obviously, keeping such a promise would require the husband’s willingness, and he could be resentful if he felt forced into a situation that he did not want. Again. God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. Similarly, the apostle Paul recognized the need for husbands and wives to cooperate in the area of sexuality: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like-wise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by aggrement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control” (1 Cor. 7: 3-5, NRSV). Two aspects of Numbers 30 are remarkble. First, the Lord could have insisted on His own rights as diety and king by requiring fulfillment of all vows to Him and oaths taken in His name, regardless of consequences to anyone else in the family. But he was more concerned for harmony in Israelite homes than for His own rights. Second, the Lord worked with an ancient society. He did not make the society, but regulated it in order to improve conditions and solve problems. Although He is supremely powerful, He did not engage in social engineering by trying to overthrow the patriarchial way of doing things. In modern times we have seen how destructive social engineering can be. Forcing Russian and Chinese societies into the mold of Communism destroyed the lives of millions of people. Estimates of Chinese deaths under the leadership of Chairman Mao range as high as 75 million. ... Romania ... this beautiful country and its society have not yet fully recovered from the ravages of Communism that ended with a revolution in 1989. As we seek to reach people of various cultures with the message of God’s love, we can learn from His wise and gentle approach. In the process of receiving Him and living according to His principles, others do not need to become exactly like us. Genuine loyalty to the Lord can flourish in a wide variety of cultural contexts. Who wrote this? Are these your thoughts? Are you able to speak on the ideas here in a reciprocal conversation? I have questions, but am not sure if it is functional to ask them of you or if I should seek out another author. If you aren't the author but feel grounded in discussing what you posted, let me know. Thanks, Phanta R. Gane, professor of Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages. The book I got it from is copyrighted but they do allow one to use small portions from it and I think/hope what I posted was small. So those were not my thoughts but I always like to get affirmations on how good God is. I don't know if I could answer your questions but why not ask them anyway, as general questions? I am a woman and I see a lot of unfair treatment to women DESCRIBED in the bible but I also don't see God as commanding women to be treated badly or punished without a cause. As the article said, God did not engage in social engineering, He also never said "Thou shalt not own any slaves" but if His rule of love God and love your fellow man were RIGHTLY followed then slavery would not have come about; God works with sinners. He ALLOWED certain circumstances to come about because He had a bigger lesson for His people to learn but that was not His ULTIMATE will. The trend I see described in the bible and in society is this : " ... and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen 3:16. Women were/are not treated with love and respect (that is the tendency) but I do see a loving God who loves us and want what is best for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time. Obviously, keeping such a promise would require the husband’s willingness, and he could be resentful if he felt forced into a situation that he did not want. Again. God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. Similarly, the apostle Paul recognized the need for husbands and wives to cooperate in the area of sexuality: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like-wise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by aggrement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control” (1 Cor. 7: 3-5, NRSV). ShackledNoMore: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time, which would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence, the OT passage in Numbers and the NT passage in 1st Corinthians are not consistent with each other: In Numbers, there is no reciprocal entitlement to a woman for the sexual favors of her husband. In Numbers, this is a command, in the rare egalitarian passage from 1 Corinthians, it is a concession (according to the next verse). At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. Numbers 30 codifies some of the patriarchal rules of bronze age Hebrew culture, 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good. Thumbelina: It is not always about what you think, it is ultimately about what the bible says and the way to look at what the bible means one needs to compare scripture with scripture. The cross references for 1corinthians7:5 does say what the PROFESSOR said which is "The passage refers to physical self- denial, which could include a vow to abstain from sexual relations for a period of time." Though, the pleasure one gets from eating good food and from having intimate relations affects the same part of the brain, one CAN survive without intimate relations but not food; however, intimate relations between a man and his wife does and can make a REALLY happy home (or cause the Messiah to be born), after all God did invent it. God had His bases covered and He knew that a wife MAY take a vow of abstinence in a marriage and that is not what He wants marriages to be; He wants husbands and wives to "know" each other. The events in the OT occurred in a patriarchal society, where men tended to be quite dominant and oppressive to women and that is not how God wanted it but that is what happened because of sin. Jesus came to show : " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28. Oh, believe me when I say those men were not really denying their wives, generally speaking, it is usually the wife who tends not to be in the mood for "amor" ( maybe not these days, there's a lot of hormones in the food etc.) I mean, God even had to tell the men to leave the women alone during their time of the month; those rules were also meant to teach some profound spiritual lessons. Two aspects of Numbers 30 are remarkble. First, the Lord could have insisted on His own rights as diety and king by requiring fulfillment of all vows to Him and oaths taken in His name, regardless of consequences to anyone else in the family. But he was more concerned for harmony in Israelite homes than for His own rights. ShackledNoMore: If concern for harmony in Israelite homes is his motive, then how come Jepathat had to murder his own daughter as a burnt offering in Judges 11 because of his vow? Did that promote harmony in his home? Thumbelina: It is not certain that Jephtha murdered his daughter, like the heathens did; it could be that he caused her to become an involuntary nun. It did not promote harmony in the home, it caused a lot of regret and the moral and spiritual lesson of : "Better [is it] that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay." Ecc 5:5 was LEARNED the hard way. The book of judges ends like this: " In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." (they believed in relativism) and unbelievers love to conveniently ignore the last part and make it seem that God commanded the people to behave the way they did. Also,James 1:19 says " Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:" and that is a lesson that we can all learn. James 5:12 "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Matt 5:34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:" God is Holy and taking an oath in His name is serious indeed. In Numbers 30, I see a MERCIFUL God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Thanks for the reply, Thumbalina. I'd enjoy engaging you on this. Let me give what you've written some thought. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 ShackledNoMore: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time, which would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence, the OT passage in Numbers and the NT passage in 1st Corinthians are not consistent with each other: In Numbers, there is no reciprocal entitlement to a woman for the sexual favors of her husband. In Numbers, this is a command, in the rare egalitarian passage from 1 Corinthians, it is a concession (according to the next verse). At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. Numbers 30 codifies some of the patriarchal rules of bronze age Hebrew culture, 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good. Thumbelina: It is not always about what you think, it is ultimately about what the bible says Let me rephrase: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time,This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day. The biblical text found in this verse unambiguously and explicitly states that we're talking about any vow. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to ponder whether most such vows would involve cutting off one's spouse from sex as opposed to some more mundane type of resolution. However, the mundane vows that are clearly included in this directive, would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence... Politely softening my response using a technique like this when I know we disagree is intended as a courtesy. If you wish to pounce on it as though it were a weakness, then I will not use it with you. As per the pop culture phrase: "Just the facts, ma'am." The point is, according to OT law specified in Numbers 30, a woman could vow to give up juju beans and a husband can overrule. A man can vow to sell their daughter into slavery and there's not a damn thing the wife can do about it. Which brings us to... The events in the OT occurred in a patriarchal society, where men tended to be quite dominant and oppressive to women and that is not how God wanted it but that is what happened because of sin. Emphasis mine. That's not the picture the bible paints. It is true that the events in the OT occurred in a patriarchal society where men tended to be dominant and oppressive to woman. OT biblegod made no secret of his angst against how sinful man was. At one point, he destroyed every inhabitant of the earth except for eight people because of it. He made a lot of laws which most people today, even xians, consider to be draconian, such as death for collecting sticks on the sabbath, and he enforced these laws. Yet he commands the inequitable arrangements under discussion in Numbers 30 without seeming upset or angry about man's sinfulness in this area in the least. He does not say, "I would that ye treat each other equitably, but because of the hardness of your hearts I create these laws under which the man will be able to oppress the woman." That was never OT biblegod's style. He did not command the Israelites to have idols and worship other gods because they were doing it anyway. He's just as assertive about his law in Numbers 30 as he is about his other laws. An explanation that he did not want this, but he inspired these laws as a response to sin does not add up. However, it makes perfect sense that a patriarchal society that oppresses women would create a god that makes such laws. Oh, believe me when I say those men were not really denying their wives, generally speaking, it is usually the wife who tends not to be in the mood for "amor" ( maybe not these days, there's a lot of hormones in the food etc.) I mean, God even had to tell the men to leave the women alone during their time of the month; those rules were also meant to teach some profound spiritual lessons. We're not talking about general stereotypes of which gender is hornier here, we're examining your claim that "God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women." Granting men the authority to oppress women, including, but not limited to dictating the shots when it comes to their sexual relationship (no matter who may or may not have the greater "needs") while the woman is powerless is not a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. At best it may allow those with misogynistic tendencies to feel that they have more power. And what, praytell, is wrong with a couple having relations during the woman's menstrual cycle? The only "sin" in this is manufactured because the bible says it. There is no more profound a spiritual lesson here than there is from a prohibition against eating rabbit. It is not certain that Jephtha murdered his daughter, like the heathens did; it could be that he caused her to become an involuntary nun. I discussed this directly in a previous post. Feel free to respond if you wish: It is true that this claim is made, or at least I have heard this. As you say, the basis of the argument seems to be that she laments never being able to get married and have children. However, although I am not a Greek scholar nor have I read the Greek, in just about any English translation you can find, Judges 11:31 reads that whatever comes out of the doors of his house to meet him, he will sacrifice up "as a burnt offering." After she finished mourning and returned, it says that he did as he had vowed (which was established in 11:30-31). I have not personally heard an explanation of why it would clearly and unambiguously refer to a burnt offering in verse 31 when it really meant that his daughter was to become the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a Vestal Virgin. I think aA satisfactory explanation of this should be required of those who say she wasn't killed because she lamented never being able to get married have children rather than lamenting her death per se. This seemsis especially so since it occurs the context of a culture where her entire worth rested on bearing sons, not to mention that never being able to experience life is a near universally common lament of those who find themselves dying uncommonly young. What this explanation does is make the story more palatable by allowing one to avoid confronting the idea that biblegod would allow such an atrocity. The book of judges ends like this: " In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." (they believed in relativism) and unbelievers love to conveniently ignore the last part and make it seem that God commanded the people to behave the way they did. Obviously, Jepathat made an astoundingly, incomprehensibly stupid and foolish vow. Let's suppose I said to you, "Thumbelina, I really need $15. And if you send it to me, I promise you that I will chop off my little finger and give it to you." Would you think, "Gee, Shack really wants this, I'll give him the $15. It's too bad that he's obligated to chop off his little finger and give it to me now." What kind of a monster would that make you? In the book of Judges, biblegod was still directly intervening in the affairs of his people to some extent. He had any number of options to keep this from happening. He could have denied Jepathat his victory because he considered it sinful to offer his daughter as a human sacrifice. He could have intervened to stop things like he did with Abraham. He could have sent a goat out when Jepathat returned home. He could have done any of these things. He did not. He let Jepathat carry out his vow of murdering his own daughter because he vowed it to biblegod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Thumbelina: It is not certain that Jephtha murdered his daughter, like the heathens did; it could be that he caused her to become an involuntary nun. It did not promote harmony in the home, it caused a lot of regret and the moral and spiritual lesson of : "Better [is it] that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay." Ecc 5:5 was LEARNED the hard way. The book of judges ends like this: " In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." (they believed in relativism) and unbelievers love to conveniently ignore the last part and make it seem that God commanded the people to behave the way they did. I didn't think of this last night, but Jepathat certainly is not represented in the bible as a relativist who only does what is right in his own eyes. Instead of criticism for making the vow and a burnt offering out of his daughter, he is praised in Hebrews 11:32 for his faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ShackledNoMore: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time, which would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence, the OT passage in Numbers and the NT passage in 1st Corinthians are not consistent with each other: In Numbers, there is no reciprocal entitlement to a woman for the sexual favors of her husband. In Numbers, this is a command, in the rare egalitarian passage from 1 Corinthians, it is a concession (according to the next verse). At the end of the chapter, Paul deviates from the OT rules by allowing a widow to remarry whoever she wants, as long as he is xian. Numbers 30 codifies some of the patriarchal rules of bronze age Hebrew culture, 1 Corinthians 7 encourages fidelity for those who can't suffer themselves to live within the framework of Paul's disdain of sexuality. They are not consistent guidelines offered by the same god for our own good. Thumbelina: It is not always about what you think, it is ultimately about what the bible says ShackledNoMore:Let me rephrase: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time,This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day. The biblical text found in this verse unambiguously and explicitly states that we're talking about any vow. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to ponder whether most such vows would involve cutting off one's spouse from sex as opposed to some more mundane type of resolution. However, the mundane vows that are clearly included in this directive, would not require the husband's willingness, but he could still overrule. Even assuming it referred to sexual abstinence... Politely softening my response using a technique like this when I know we disagree is intended as a courtesy. If you wish to pounce on it as though it were a weakness, then I will not use it with you. As per the pop culture phrase: "Just the facts, ma'am." The point is, according to OT law specified in Numbers 30, a woman could vow to give up juju beans and a husband can overrule. A man can vow to sell their daughter into slavery and there's not a damn thing the wife can do about it. Which brings us to... "Politely softening my response using a technique like this when I know we disagree is intended as a courtesy. If you wish to pounce on it as though it were a weakness, then I will not use it with you." Thumbelina: No, I do not see it as a weakness, I see it as the opposite actually and it is quite refreshing to see ShackledNoMore: This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day. Not necessarily, the bible says: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." Rom 14:7 That means what we do affects others. Though it primarily addresses our obligation to God, this verse: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Luke 10:27 summarizes the ten commandments. (See also Leviticus 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm ; Deuteronomy 6:5 http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/6-5.htm ) If one truly loves God then one WILL love ones fellow man. God is selfless and He wants His children to be the same. What if she had made a vow to fast for a lengthy time and it made her too weak to wash, cook or take care of the kids properly? What if she had made a vow to abstain from eating a certain food and when she did it gave her bad flatulence? The nostrils of the husband and kids can be affected. Women can be quite emotional ( I am) and emotions can cause people to be impetuous and that rule was put there to avoid that. Eg. I was complaining to a Christian believer of another community of faith, that in my talks with skeptics, the females I have encountered TEND to be way meaner than the males (though I think I'm discovering some nice ones), I mean, the trend when it comes to female skeptics, is to give vituperative emotionalism which they often substitute for reasoned discussions. Anyway, my friend laughed out loud and said "All they got is mouth" and then I lol too. I have observed this too, females can, in SOME instances, be difficult (hey I am a female and can say this but if a man says it ...) and they can take a LONG time to make up their minds and can make some silly decisions while the men can sometimes come to good decisions and make up their minds in a shorter time and can be more practical without all the emotions involved. Females, please forgive me but I did experience having to deal with troublesome females and it required a lot of patience while the men were generally a breeze to deal with and other females said the same thing too. I refuse to go shopping with a certain female in my family, it's like hitting your head against a brick wall. ShackledNoMore:The point is, according to OT law specified in Numbers 30, a woman could vow to give up juju beans and a husband can overrule. A man can vow to sell their daughter into slavery and there's not a damn thing the wife can do about it. Thumbelina: As I said in my previous post, God got all the bases covered; there is nothing new under the sun, for sinful human nature is always the same. N. B. I did not say that men cannot be rash and do stupid things too, like Samson. The bible has councils AGAINST impetuousness: "[it is] a snare to the man [who] devoureth [that which is] holy, and after vows to make inquiry." Prov 20:25 . The bible basically says believers -- and that means women too -- ought to walk by faith (believing what God instructs) and not by sight i.e. rely on emotions or the dictates of faulty humans. In the OT God was establishing this, the bible was being made, we are learning or ought to learn from their mistakes and successes. What you are not seeing is that the husband could have and probably did let the vow stand ---> "... her husband may establish it, ..." Num 30:13 If the vow had no adverse effects to the family then there should be no reason to make it void. Numbers 30 was dealing with oaths to God, Himself. God is fair and he deals with trends and tendencies, elsewhere in the bible it describes a wife overruling the dictates of her STUPID husband in 1 Samuel 25 http://kingjbible.com/1_samuel/25.htm. Abigail made some wise decisions when Nabal, her husband made some dumb ones and she also prevented David from taking some stupid actions himself. God ALLOWED this, God's goal is harmony AND righteousness among His children. God established roles and men are supposed to be servant-leaders and they ought to love their wives and take care of them. They are NOT to be dictators! Thumbelina said: The events in the OT occurred in a patriarchal society, where men tended to be quite dominant and oppressive to women and that is not how God wanted it but that is what happened because of sin. Emphasis mine. ShackledNoMore: That's not the picture the bible paints. It is true that the events in the OT occurred in a patriarchal society where men tended to be dominant and oppressive to woman. OT biblegod made no secret of his angst against how sinful man was. At one point, he destroyed every inhabitant of the earth except for eight people because of it. He made a lot of laws which most people today, even xians, consider to be draconian, such as death for collecting sticks on the sabbath, and he enforced these laws. Yet he commands the inequitable arrangements under discussion in Numbers 30 without seeming upset or angry about man's sinfulness in this area in the least. He does not say, "I would that ye treat each other equitably, but because of the hardness of your hearts I create these laws under which the man will be able to oppress the woman." That was never OT biblegod's style. He did not command the Israelites to have idols and worship other gods because they were doing it anyway. He's just as assertive about his law in Numbers 30 as he is about his other laws. An explanation that he did not want this, but he inspired these laws as a response to sin does not add up. However, it makes perfect sense that a patriarchal society that oppresses women would create a god that makes such laws. Thumbelina: Look at Jesus, He was good to women when the men wanted to treat them badly and the Jesus God is the SAME God of the OT 1 Corinthians 10:4 . http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-4.htm ; Heb 13:8 http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-8.htm BEFORE sin, there was harmony between man and woman, they started to play the blame game after they sinned. In Numbers, the Israelites had come out from a sinful Egyptian culture and God was slowly and patiently teaching them how they ought to live. The Ark was OPEN to everyone, they were WARNED of impending danger time and time again; the people REFUSED to enter in, they were BAD, their thoughts were evil CONTINUALLY. What is the purpose of the Sabbath? It's a date with God and dating God reminds people of their LOVING Creator and Redeemer and its function is to prevent people from believing in and getting involved in secular humanism, materialism, atheism and the like. The people of the flood were like that and God did not want those type of philosophies to completely take over Israelite culture before the Messiah could be born. Messiah was born and died for EVERYONE so now temporary OT rules (of stoning people for breaking certain of God's law that is written in stone) do not apply; judgment will come at the end---> Luke 17: 24-30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17%3A24-30&version=KJV Thumbelina said: Oh, believe me when I say those men were not really denying their wives, generally speaking, it is usually the wife who tends not to be in the mood for "amor" ( maybe not these days, there's a lot of hormones in the food etc.) I mean, God even had to tell the men to leave the women alone during their time of the month; those rules were also meant to teach some profound spiritual lessons. ShackledNoMore: We're not talking about general stereotypes of which gender is hornier here, we're examining your claim that "God made a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women." Granting men the authority to oppress women, including, but not limited to dictating the shots when it comes to their sexual relationship (no matter who may or may not have the greater "needs") while the woman is powerless is not a way to avoid unhappiness between men and women. At best it may allow those with misogynistic tendencies to feel that they have more power. Thumbelina: What I was saying is that when a married couple love each other and are together in an intimate way it does tend to make a happier home. Also, if a wife made a stupid vow and the husband nullified her vow and she came to realize she was rash in making it, she would have been grateful to her husband. Hey, men could have nullified a vow that a woman made TO GOD or in the Lord's name, regarding sexual abstinence but that did not mean they still did not have to sleep on the couch. He could still sweet talk her to not let him sleep on the couch any more but if he had let her establish her vow to God or in God's name then he would HAVE to sleep on the couch and not touch his wife; that could cause him to be grumpy. ShackledNoMore: And what, praytell, is wrong with a couple having relations during the woman's menstrual cycle? The only "sin" in this is manufactured because the bible says it. There is no more profound a spiritual lesson here than there is from a prohibition against eating rabbit. Thumbelina: It was a rule that God had put in place because God wanted to impress on the people that shed blood represents sin and death and it causes separation. That rule was in place until Jesus came and laid down His life for His bleeding bride, the church. Rabbits as well as scavengers are not fit for human consumption. I think I read somewhere that rabbits gnaw on their own fecal matter. Thumbelina said: It is not certain that Jephtha murdered his daughter, like the heathens did; it could be that he caused her to become an involuntary nun. ShackledNoMore said:I discussed this directly in a previous post. Feel free to respond if you wish: It is true that this claim is made, or at least I have heard this. As you say, the basis of the argument seems to be that she laments never being able to get married and have children. However, although I am not a Greek scholar nor have I read the Greek, in just about any English translation you can find, Judges 11:31 reads that whatever comes out of the doors of his house to meet him, he will sacrifice up "as a burnt offering." After she finished mourning and returned, it says that he did as he had vowed (which was established in 11:30-31). I have not personally heard an explanation of why it would clearly and unambiguously refer to a burnt offering in verse 31 when it really meant that his daughter was to become the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a Vestal Virgin. I think aA satisfactory explanation of this should be required of those who say she wasn't killed because she lamented never being able to get married have children rather than lamenting her death per se. This seemsis especially so since it occurs the context of a culture where her entire worth rested on bearing sons, not to mention that never being able to experience life is a near universally common lament of those who find themselves dying uncommonly young. What this explanation does is make the story more palatable by allowing one to avoid confronting the idea that biblegod would allow such an atrocity. Thumbelina: There were two purposes for sacrifice/offerings: 1) To show praise, thankfulness and devotion. 2) Atonement, the covering and removal of sin. Leviticus chapter 17 has a warning to the Israelites about sacrificing wrongly and in the sacrifices listed, humans were not mentioned; ONLY livestock was listed!. Leviticus 20:2 http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-2.htm warns them to NOT sacrifice children ---> "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." The 6th commandment also said/says " Thou shalt not kill (the original word is murder) Here's a quote from a conversation on this subject: "Most scholars believe that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a burnt offering because she was human and that was forbidden; but what he did was offer her to the Lord like with a Nazarite vow - as a woman she could never marry; and as a man with a daughter and only one daughter who could never marry, that meant that his posterity ended right there. He would have no descendents; no children, grandchildren and she would never be married. So it goes to say later that the daughters in Israel mourned the virginity of Jephthah’s daughter because obviously she never married; In verse 39 it says he did to her what he had promised. But you could look in a lot of other stories, people would consecrate their children to the Lord. If it was an animal, it was a burnt offering; but in the Mosaic Law it said very specifically that you would substitute – when your firstborn child – the firstborn of the womb was to be offered to the Lord. Your firstborn child was substituted with an animal. And so Jephthah said that whatever the Lord gives me I’ll offer to the Lord and he obviously committed his daughter to the Lord where she never married. It was like sort of a Nazarite vow. There’s no record that he killed her, cut her throat and burnt her because God forbad doing that. And Jephthah also, in Hebrews 11, he’s listed among the faithful; and you know if he had murdered his own child, I wonder if he would be in that list." Thumbelina: Exodus 13:12 "you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD." backs up what the Pastor said above. ............................ Thumbelina said: The book of judges ends like this: " In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." (they believed in relativism) and unbelievers love to conveniently ignore the last part and make it seem that God commanded the people to behave the way they did. ShackledNoMore: Obviously, Jepathat made an astoundingly, incomprehensibly stupid and foolish vow. Let's suppose I said to you, "Thumbelina, I really need $15. And if you send it to me, I promise you that I will chop off my little finger and give it to you." Would you think, "Gee, Shack really wants this, I'll give him the $15. It's too bad that he's obligated to chop off his little finger and give it to me now." What kind of a monster would that make you? In the book of Judges, biblegod was still directly intervening in the affairs of his people to some extent. He had any number of options to keep this from happening. He could have denied Jepathat his victory because he considered it sinful to offer his daughter as a human sacrifice. He could have intervened to stop things like he did with Abraham. He could have sent a goat out when Jepathat returned home. He could have done any of these things. He did not. He let Jepathat carry out his vow of murdering his own daughter because he vowed it to biblegod. Thumbelina: First off, I won't say gee, that is a euphemism for Jesus. Secondly I will think you are joking. Thirdly, if I thought you were serious, I'd contact the insane asylum and report you. Fourthly, I cannot put your finger back together but a Creator God can by just speaking, He can repair ears too; He is the resurrection AND the life. God allows humans to experience pain so they would long for something better, i.e. life together with Him for ETERNITY. Physical pain was/is allowed so humans can learn not to cause each other emotional pain. I have a family member whose son needed surgery because something was terribly wrong with his legs. The doctors had to break his legs and bandage it and his bones had to grow again; it was a hard decision for his mother to make but she allowed it and it took him months to recover but now he's perfect. Now one can't tell that any thing was ever wrong with him. The pain was worth the outcome! God SOMETIMES ALLOWS people to face the consequences of their decisions and sometimes the seemingly innocent does get hurt but He NEEDS to let sin become exceedingly sinful in our eyes. http://bible.cc/romans/7-13.htm . His rules NEED to be followed for there to be harmony among ALL creatures. God will make it up to His children --> http://bible.cc/romans/8-18.htm "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rev. 21:4 http://bible.cc/revelation/21-4.htm And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.; Rev. 22:23 http://bible.cc/revelation/22-3.htm "And there shall be no more curse: ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Thumbelina: It is not certain that Jephtha murdered his daughter, like the heathens did; it could be that he caused her to become an involuntary nun. It did not promote harmony in the home, it caused a lot of regret and the moral and spiritual lesson of : "Better [is it] that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay." Ecc 5:5 was LEARNED the hard way. The book of judges ends like this: " In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." (they believed in relativism) and unbelievers love to conveniently ignore the last part and make it seem that God commanded the people to behave the way they did. I didn't think of this last night, but Jepathat certainly is not represented in the bible as a relativist who only does what is right in his own eyes. Instead of criticism for making the vow and a burnt offering out of his daughter, he is praised in Hebrews 11:32 for his faith. Sorry Shack, the book of Judges describes a time when Israel was so utterly disobedient to God and I got used to skeptics acting as if it was God commanding them to do those horrible things and I did put that in there. However, I did say that Jephtha sinned by being rash but ALL the folks listed in Hebrews 11 sinned but God remembers our sins NO MORE as long as one comes to Him and is sincerely repentant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Thanks for the reply, Thumbalina. I'd enjoy engaging you on this. Let me give what you've written some thought. Phanta You're welcome. By answering questions I'm also learning about these things but I'm coming with an optimistic view as I'm sure you already know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 "Politely softening my response using a technique like this when I know we disagree is intended as a courtesy. If you wish to pounce on it as though it were a weakness, then I will not use it with you." Thumbelina: No, I do not see it as a weakness, I see it as the opposite actually and it is quite refreshing to see Good! We shall disagree in politeness and courtesy, even if we disagree strongly! ShackledNoMore: This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day. Not necessarily, the bible says: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." Rom 14:7 That means what we do affects others. Though it primarily addresses our obligation to God, this verse: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Luke 10:27 summarizes the ten commandments. (See also Leviticus 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm ; Deuteronomy 6:5 http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/6-5.htm ) If one truly loves God then one WILL love ones fellow man. God is selfless and He wants His children to be the same. We really don't need the bible to illustrate that what we do affects others. Few would argue with that, christian, atheist, or anyone else. I find your reference to Leviticus 19:18 to provide the best argument to support your point, followed by Deuteronomy 6:5, with the NT references being the weakest. Why? Well, that's from the scripture that the ancient Hebrew jewish believers had. Even if OT god and NT god are the same god, this is how he presented himself to the ancient Hebrews. Leviticus 19:18 actually gives direction as to how we should treat each other (as opposed to Deuteronomy 6:5 which deals with how jews (and later christians) should regard their god). Of course the edict is limited to one's own fellow Israelites. In the very next verse in Leviticus, there are commands against mating two different kinds of animals, planting your field with two different kinds of seeds, and wearing clothing made from two different kinds of materials (the cotton-polyester blend sin so rampant among modern xians). The next verse after that, biblegod is lenient to men who sleep with betrothed female slaves, well, because she was just a slave. This whole thing really bespeaks tribal loyalty (or you can say "love" if you prefer) as opposed to love of one's fellow man. Now granted, although there were OT exceptions, an Israelite's wife was also supposed to be another Israelite, so the edict would apply. However, the Pentateuch is all about how sinful man is and even how sinful god's people, the Israelites were. It was all about giving mandates to these sinful people. Giving sinful men absolute authority over women is asking for abuse, and that's just the situation women have lived under for millennia. The god of the bible, if he existed, would have known this. Of course you disagree with me when I say that god did not do that, since he was in invention of man, but the edict was certainly effective in keeping men in power and women oppressed. But for a directive from one's god, I cannot fathom that one would not find such an inequitable arrangement to be anything short of horrendous. What if she had made a vow to fast for a lengthy time and it made her too weak to wash, cook or take care of the kids properly? What if she had made a vow to abstain from eating a certain food and when she did it gave her bad flatulence? The nostrils of the husband and kids can be affected. She may have made such a vow, but my whole point is that she also could have made a vow to fast for one meal or something equally innocuous. Since the husband's veto power is unrestricted, a better question is "What if a wife makes a vow to fast for one meal or to give water to someone who's thirsty or to cook healthier meals for her family?" If you answer that the husband might find that it would negatively impact the family because it would take the wife's attention away from the family or they didn't like veggies, then a follow-up question: what if it was the wife that happened to be right about what was best for the family under their circumstances? Second: what if she made a vow that made her weak or gave her flatulence? Why is it then OK for the husband to be as gassy as his heart desires? Women can be quite emotional ( I am) and emotions can cause people to be impetuous and that rule was put there to avoid that. Eg. I was complaining to a Christian believer of another community of faith, that in my talks with skeptics, the females I have encountered TEND to be way meaner than the males... I personally have not noticed any difference between men and women in overall meanness in religious debates for either skeptics or believers. Both sexes can be jerks. A person is responsible for his or her own behavior: it matters not whether that person is male or female. It is certainly not an excuse as to why men should have the authority. Women are not less qualified to make sound decisions from being too emotional. Tantrums and ad hominem attacks are ineffective and unbecoming from members of either sex. ShackledNoMore:The point is, according to OT law specified in Numbers 30, a woman could vow to give up juju beans and a husband can overrule. A man can vow to sell their daughter into slavery and there's not a damn thing the wife can do about it. Thumbelina: As I said in my previous post, God got all the bases covered But when he explicitly puts women under submission to men, whether the man is selfless and loving, as he should be, well intentioned but merely stupid, or maliciously sadistic, how is this covering all the bases? How are all the bases covered for women that are battered, sometimes even killed by abusive husbands because they follow the biblical edict of submission to their husbands? What you are not seeing is that the husband could have and probably did let the vow stand I am aware that the husband has the option of not vetoing his wife's vow and I'm sure they did in many or most cases. No doubt there are also many cases where he used the veto pen. If my wife thought she had absolute power to nullify my decision to wear my favorite shirt, I would have a bone to pick with her, even if she was gracious enough to allow me to wear it. If I had that same attitude toward her I would certainly hope that she'd have a bone to pick with me (she would, rightfully so). God is fair and he deals with trends and tendencies, elsewhere in the bible it describes a wife overruling the dictates of her STUPID husband in 1 Samuel 25 http://kingjbible.com/1_samuel/25.htm. Abigail made some wise decisions when Nabal, her husband made some dumb ones and she also prevented David from taking some stupid actions himself. God ALLOWED this, God's goal is harmony AND righteousness among His children. So it is written in 1 Samuel 25. It seems a little inconsistent. The bible is clear elsewhere that the husband is the head of the wife. It is wonderful that Abigail could act to avert a disaster when her husband was testy, but it makes the general guidelines a little murky. Not only that, but Nabal was merely rude to David's men: David had to be talked out of murdering not only Nabal, but his entire family! Yet David was always god's golden boy and it was perfectly OK that he had to be talked out of killing all of Nabal's men merely because he had been slighted. Look at Jesus, He was good to women when the men wanted to treat them badly and the Jesus God is the SAME God of the OT Although a bit rough around the edges in some areas by modern standards, Jesus was a much kinder, gentler version of god than the one portrayed in the OT. If they were the same god, then why is this? It makes a lot more sense that Jesus was the central figure of a new, emerging religion than that an unchanging god had such a dramatic face lift. What is the purpose of the Sabbath? It's a date with God and dating God reminds people of their LOVING Creator and Redeemer and its function is to prevent people from believing in and getting involved in secular humanism, materialism, atheism and the like. I wouldn't have been a very loving man if I had murdered my wife for breaking a date with me while we were seeing each other the way the biblical god mandates for breaking a date with him on the sabbath. Hey, men could have nullified a vow that a woman made TO GOD or in the Lord's name, regarding sexual abstinence but that did not mean they still did not have to sleep on the couch. I would think the biblical husband would simply forbid that in the spirit of family harmony. Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." I have just exceeded the number of allowed quote blocks, so my response is continued in the next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Rabbits as well as scavengers are not fit for human consumption. Uh oh. I have bad news for you. You are going to think I am really disgusting now. Not only am I an atheist, but rabbit is one of my favorite foods! The truth is, rabbit is tasty and probably relatively healthy compared to most red meats. Here's a quote from a conversation on this subject: "Most scholars believe that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a burnt offering because she was human and that was forbidden; but what he did was offer her to the Lord like with a Nazarite vow... If this were indeed true, and god were not the author of confusion, then he sure could have said just that (just as Nazarite vows were referenced elsewhere in the bible) rather than saying that Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering (as a euphemism for offering her with a Nazarite vow?). ShackledNoMore: Obviously, Jepathat made an astoundingly, incomprehensibly stupid and foolish vow. Let's suppose I said to you, "Thumbelina, I really need $15. And if you send it to me, I promise you that I will chop off my little finger and give it to you." Would you think, "Gee, Shack really wants this, I'll give him the $15. It's too bad that he's obligated to chop off his little finger and give it to me now." What kind of a monster would that make you? In the book of Judges, biblegod was still directly intervening in the affairs of his people to some extent. He had any number of options to keep this from happening. He could have denied Jepathat his victory because he considered it sinful to offer his daughter as a human sacrifice. He could have intervened to stop things like he did with Abraham. He could have sent a goat out when Jepathat returned home. He could have done any of these things. He did not. He let Jepathat carry out his vow of murdering his own daughter because he vowed it to biblegod. Thumbelina: First off, I won't say gee, that is a euphemism for Jesus. No problem! Your use or non-use of the word "gee" doesn't affect the point being made. Secondly I will think you are joking. Well, while the analogy is fully contrived and it goes without saying that I would never do anything like that, I think it illustrates the point quite well. My promise would actually be a lot less insane than Jephthah's. Fourthly, I cannot put your finger back together but a Creator God can by just speaking, He can repair ears too I am aware that you have not conceded that Jepathat sacrificed his daughter's life, despite wording to that effect that apologists try to reframe, but one thing is clear: she was not sacrificed and then resurrected! You claim that the christian god can grow back fingers and ears, but there has never been one case where that has actually happened. In fact, if you really want to convince me, you have a golden opportunity. Ask god to grow my father-in-law's amputated leg back. If he's walking around on a new leg in the morning, you will have convinced me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Thanks for your replies Shack, I hope to get back to you maybe next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 So what about when the bible says god will never give a person anymore than they can bear? That being the case why do so many people commit suicide when they simply cannot take the pain of this world? Is it a lie then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 Phanta, my bad - I am still talking about the specific incidence when the man convinces his fiance' to elope against her parents (esp Dad's) wishes. I'm thinking about the kind of man he is; that he would't take the time to win over the parents. I have seen a friend of mine make this effort with parents. It takes patience and proves character. So, I agree with many of your thots. The married couple should function as a harmonious team. And the occasion when Abigail delivered her husband Nabal and their property from sure destruction is a classic case of a wise and discerning woman taking charge of a situation to avert tragedy. But I maintain that ultimately the responsibility rests on the father/husband. I guess I just don't grock your need to have the man be bigger, more, ultimate, especially, etc. I'm curious, do you identify first and foremost as a male or as a human? Malachi denounces the practice of "trophy wives." 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Malachi 2:13–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. 'wife of your youth' refers to exactly that - the woman who cared for you and your children. God basically says; "Now when you're older (and she's older), and the kids are out of the house - now you want to divorce her, and pursue the trophy? Despicable - and you will experience God's judgement for such faithless behavior." Gotcha. Thank you. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ShackledNoMore: "Politely softening my response using a technique like this when I know we disagree is intended as a courtesy. If you wish to pounce on it as though it were a weakness, then I will not use it with you." Thumbelina: No, I do not see it as a weakness, I see it as the opposite actually and it is quite refreshing to see Good! We shall disagree in politeness and courtesy, even if we disagree strongly! Thumbelina: Curtsy to you. ShackledNoMore: This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day. Thumbelina said: Not necessarily, the bible says: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." Rom 14:7 That means what we do affects others. Though it primarily addresses our obligation to God, this verse: "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Luke 10:27 summarizes the ten commandments. (See also Leviticus 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm ; Deuteronomy 6:5 http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/6-5.htm ) If one truly loves God then one WILL love ones fellow man. God is selfless and He wants His children to be the same. ShackledNoMore said: I find your reference to Leviticus 19:18 to provide the best argument to support your point, followed by Deuteronomy 6:5, with the NT references being the weakest. Why? Well, that's from the scripture that the ancient Hebrew jewish believers had. Even if OT god and NT god are the same god, this is how he presented himself to the ancient Hebrews. Thumbelina: To the Christian, the bible is read not in part but as a whole and the whole bible shows God commanding His children to love Him and each other; so yes, I was eager to show that the NT and OT complement each other and I listed the NT example of first. ShackledNoMore said: Leviticus 19:18 actually gives direction as to how we should treat each other (as opposed to Deuteronomy 6:5 which deals with how jews (and later christians) should regard their god). Thumbelina: Actually it says in Deuteronomy 6:17 that Israelites should keep the 10 Commandments and Ex 20: 12-17, the second part of the 10 Commandments, addresses our relationship with each other. Here's an excerpt from my bible:" Deut. 6:1 The commandment, the statutes and the judgments. The commandments "{Heb. mitsvah; see Deut 4:2} is a reference to the sum and substance of the law -- The ten Commandments or perhaps encompassing all the Torah." You find in the bible that law and testimony are used interchangeably eg. Ex 16:28; Ex 24:12; Deut 4:13; Deut 33:2; Rom 7:7-12; Rom 13:8-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2016:28;Ex%2024:12;Deut%204:13;Deut%2033:2;Rom%207:7-12;%20Rom%2013:8-10&version=KJV ShackledNoMore said: Of course the edict is limited to one's own fellow Israelites. Thumbelina: No, the edict was not limited to only fellow Israelites. There were other people that were adopted into the fold ---> Num 9:14; Ex 12 48, 49 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num%209:14;%20Ex%2012:48,49&version=KJV . God promised to bless ALL nations through His chosen people ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2012:3;%20Gen%2022:18&version=KJV Gen 12:3; 22:18 ; they were supposed to be evangelists AND produce the Messiah). The adoptees had to follow the same rules as the Israelites. ShackledNoMore said: In the very next verse in Leviticus, there are commands against mating two different kinds of animals, planting your field with two different kinds of seeds, and wearing clothing made from two different kinds of materials (the cotton-polyester blend sin so rampant among modern xians). Thumbelina: What you MISSED was that Lev 19:33, 34 where God instructs the Israelites to treat strangers kindly. He was specific lest they went on a tangent like you did and wrest the scriptures out of context Lev 19:33, 34 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. You're referring to Lev 19:19 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm ; commentators explain about this in the link I provided. I see it as God saying 'be ye separate'; He was giving them physical examples of spiritual and moral truths. The pagans were basically immoral idolaters and God wanted a differentiation between His children and them. ShackledNoMore said: The next verse after that, biblegod is lenient to men who sleep with betrothed female slaves, well, because she was just a slave. Thumbelina: Actually God was lenient to both of them and I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that God was lenient. Lev 19: 20-22 deals with that issue; the cross reference for vs 21 which says: "And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, [even] a ram for a trespass offering." is Lev 5:15 which says: "If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:" Maybe the slave was ditsy and didn't say anything and they let their base passions take over or maybe she was not made aware that her master had betrothed her? I don't know. ShackledNoMore said: This whole thing really bespeaks tribal loyalty (or you can say "love" if you prefer) as opposed to love of one's fellow man. Thumbelina: What is love? If one is good and loyal to one's fellow man it is indeed love. Love is an action word and I don't know about you but when people don't lie, steal, attempt to kill others, covet them or their stuff in a negative way, cheat on their mates and when they honor their parents it bespeaks love and the FEELING of like can and usually do follow. Here's a biblical definition of love: Romans 13:9, 10 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law. ShackledNoMore said: Now granted, although there were OT exceptions, an Israelite's wife was also supposed to be another Israelite, so the edict would apply. Thumbelina: Yes you are right, the adoptees could marry Israelites and it is a good thing to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. If you look at Israel's history they apostatized A LOT when they joined themselves with the surrounding nations. Maybe, initially they intended to introduce them to God and the Israelite culture and they probably empathized with some of their troubles but instead they got involved in frivolous conversations and coarse jesting and they got involved in grosser and grosser sins until they apostatized; the pagans converted them instead and consequently they were lost together ShackledNoMore said: However, the Pentateuch is all about how sinful man is and even how sinful god's people, the Israelites were. It was all about giving mandates to these sinful people. Thumbelina: Skeptics see the glass as half empty whereas the believer sees the glass as half full. God was merciful in the OT. No sinner deserves mercy. ShackledNoMore said: Giving sinful men absolute authority over women is asking for abuse, and that's just the situation women have lived under for millennia. The god of the bible, if he existed, would have known this. Of course you disagree with me when I say that god did not do that, since he was in invention of man, but the edict was certainly effective in keeping men in power and women oppressed. But for a directive from one's god, I cannot fathom that one would not find such an inequitable arrangement to be anything short of horrendous. Thumbelina: God did not give sinful men absolute authority over women! He made them equal but different. Men TEND to be stronger than women and they were/are supposed to love women and their differences were to complement each other but sin and selfishness changed what God had ordained. In a sinful and dangerous world the man is supposed to PROTECT the woman and not harm her. The abuse came as a consequence of sin. Those Israelites were slaves in Egypt and there is a spiritual lesson; Paul refers to our sinful nature (breaking God's commandments) as being in bondage and they were free but they still had the slave mentality and they were committing the same sins and being in bondage although they were free. God wanted to get them out of that type of thinking but He had to do it slowly so they could understand why His commandments were important and those handwriting of ordinances were there to make sure the nation did not fall apart completely before the promised Messiah could be born. In a Godly marriage roles will work because both partners are selfless and aiming to please God and each other. Thumbelina said: What if she had made a vow to fast for a lengthy time and it made her too weak to wash, cook or take care of the kids properly? What if she had made a vow to abstain from eating a certain food and when she did it gave her bad flatulence? The nostrils of the husband and kids can be affected. ShackledNoMore said: She may have made such a vow, but my whole point is that she also could have made a vow to fast for one meal or something equally innocuous. Since the husband's veto power is unrestricted, a better question is "What if a wife makes a vow to fast for one meal ... Thumbelina: If a husband restricted that then he would be what I call a Nabal (fool) of a husband; he would be an overbearing man. However, what if he restricted it because she had a young baby and she had low blood sugar and she fainted when she did not eat? God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones. ShackledNoMore said: "...or to give water to someone who's thirsty ... Thumbelina: Firstly, the verse we are discussing is Numbers 30:13 --> "Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself when you said: " This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself ..." Secondly, in OT culture strangers or guests were treated well. In fact, some people were so entrenched in that culture of being good to guests that there's a case where one went so went so far as to offer their daughters to be mob raped rather that surrender the guests to said mob. ShackledNoMore said: ... or to cook healthier meals for her family?" Thumbelina: As aforementioned, it was a vow to afflict HERSELF. Besides, Israelite meals were basically healthy; they ate only clean meats (unless they apostatized and went and ate the same dinner as the pagans; they ate no rabbits ) and they ate no blood or fat from the clean meats. ShackledNoMore said: If you answer that the husband might find that it would negatively impact the family because it would take the wife's attention away from the family or they didn't like veggies, then a follow-up question: what if it was the wife that happened to be right about what was best for the family under their circumstances? Thumbelina: Then as I said earlier, her husband would have been an overbearing bully or just simply mistaken, to err is human you know. Really, it is not too much different from scenarios faced by husbands and wives today. Thumbelina said: Second: what if she made a vow that made her weak or gave her flatulence? ShackledNoMore said: Why is it then OK for the husband to be as gassy as his heart desires? Thumbelina: *mischievous grin* You know there's a double standard with that? If the woman is gassy the husband can't kick her out of the bed and he has to put up with it but if the man is gassy then it will be 'Ugh, you stink, you have to sleep on the couch!' Vetoing that vow will help the husband breathe well. lol Thumbelina said: Women can be quite emotional ( I am) and emotions can cause people to be impetuous and that rule was put there to avoid that. Eg. I was complaining to a Christian believer of another community of faith, that in my talks with skeptics, the females I have encountered TEND to be way meaner than the males... ShackledNoMore said: I personally have not noticed any difference between men and women in overall meanness in religious debates for either skeptics or believers. Both sexes can be jerks. A person is responsible for his or her own behavior: it matters not whether that person is male or female. It is certainly not an excuse as to why men should have the authority. Women are not less qualified to make sound decisions from being too emotional. Tantrums and ad hominem attacks are ineffective and unbecoming from members of either sex. Thumbelina: As I said it was my subjective experience. No I was not saying that it was an excuse I was saying that in a Godly home roles can work and the husband can be the priest of the home. As long as the wife is treated well she will be happy to submit to her husband and allow him to lead. ShackledNoMore:The point is, according to OT law specified in Numbers 30, a woman could vow to give up juju beans and a husband can overrule. A man can vow to sell their daughter into slavery and there's not a damn thing the wife can do about it. Thumbelina: As I said in my previous post, God got all the bases covered ShackledNoMore:But when he explicitly puts women under submission to men, whether the man is selfless and loving, as he should be, well intentioned but merely stupid, or maliciously sadistic, how is this covering all the bases? How are all the bases covered for women that are battered, sometimes even killed by abusive husbands because they follow the biblical edict of submission to their husbands? Thumbelina: What I meant by He got His bases covered it was in the context of preventing women from going on strike and abstaining from having intimate relations with their husbands and decreasing the chances of the Messiah being born or being born in a Godly home and saving MANY; No Messiah, no salvation. God's goal is a Godly home and unfortunately some people like Abigail (beautiful, intelligent woman) got a bum rap by being paired with Nabal (fool) but Abigail placed her faith in God and God gave her peace and God eventually took back His breath of life from Nabal (fool) so she got a break. In churches today, there tends to be more women than men and a number of these women are unequally yolked with unbelievers and some of these men are horrible, they lie, they cheat, they may verbally abuse the women and in that case the believing woman is the priest of the home. If the husband then becomes a believer and is then converted then He can become the priest of the home. God did and does look at individual situations and He is merciful; it was/is important for a couple to submit to God and that way there will be harmony in the home and more importantly, salvation and eternal life. Thumbelina said: What you are not seeing is that the husband could have and probably did let the vow stand ShackledNoMore: I am aware that the husband has the option of not vetoing his wife's vow and I'm sure they did in many or most cases. No doubt there are also many cases where he used the veto pen. If my wife thought she had absolute power to nullify my decision to wear my favorite shirt, I would have a bone to pick with her, even if she was gracious enough to allow me to wear it. If I had that same attitude toward her I would certainly hope that she'd have a bone to pick with me (she would, rightfully so). Thumbelina: You and your wife are living in a different time and culture; you two are not hoping to produce a Messiah, He came already. She won't have to veto your decision to wear an ugly shirt, all she has to do is laugh at you until you change it I often praise God that I was not born during those times. Thumbelina said: God is fair and he deals with trends and tendencies, elsewhere in the bible it describes a wife overruling the dictates of her STUPID husband in 1 Samuel 25 http://kingjbible.com/1_samuel/25.htm. Abigail made some wise decisions when Nabal, her husband made some dumb ones and she also prevented David from taking some stupid actions himself. God ALLOWED this, God's goal is harmony AND righteousness among His children. ShackledNoMore: So it is written in 1 Samuel 25. It seems a little inconsistent. The bible is clear elsewhere that the husband is the head of the wife. It is wonderful that Abigail could act to avert a disaster when her husband was testy, but it makes the general guidelines a little murky. Not only that, but Nabal was merely rude to David's men: David had to be talked out of murdering not only Nabal, but his entire family! Yet David was always god's golden boy and it was perfectly OK that he had to be talked out of killing all of Nabal's men merely because he had been slighted. Thumbelina: No, God is not inconsistent, in Ex 34 Moses described Him :" .... and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; ... He is MERCIFUL and He is JUST. John 3:16 says that we should die, that is the penalty for breaking God's law but grace and mercy are also a part of his nature and it can even overide His justice http://bible.cc/james/2-13.htm James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. You know before I became a Christian I couldn't stand David, actually even after I became a Christian I still could not stand him but to err is human and I'm not perfect so who am I to judge. The guidelines may seem murky to us but that is where they sought or should have sought council from Moses, the elders and the Holy Spirit. I do remember reading in the bible (forgive me but I don't remember where right now) that women could not inherit property and there was a case where a man had only daughters and the man died and they might have lost their livelihood so they pleaded their case and was granted the property. There are good stuff in the bible; mercy is shown in the OT too. As I said God dealt with trends but there were concessions. Thumbelina said: Look at Jesus, He was good to women when the men wanted to treat them badly and the Jesus God is the SAME God of the OT ShackledNoMore: Although a bit rough around the edges in some areas by modern standards, Jesus was a much kinder, gentler version of god than the one portrayed in the OT. Thumbelina: What do you mean Jesus was rough around the edges? ShackledNoMore: If they were the same god, then why is this? It makes a lot more sense that Jesus was the central figure of a new, emerging religion than that an unchanging god had such a dramatic face lift. Thumbelina: He is just and merciful in both Testaments but the NT focuses more on His mercy. In the OT, for a time they were under a theocracy and the people still rebelled with God right there! So you see people who say ' Oh if I see a miracle, I will believe or serve God.' No they won't, they generally won't because they don't want to submit to God so the novelty of a miracle will wane. He had to be more strict in the OT because He needed to become God incarnate and cause His law to be written on the hearts of His children. Thumbelina said: What is the purpose of the Sabbath? It's a date with God and dating God reminds people of their LOVING Creator and Redeemer and its function is to prevent people from believing in and getting involved in secular humanism, materialism, atheism and the like. ShackledNoMore: I wouldn't have been a very loving man if I had murdered my wife for breaking a date with me while we were seeing each other the way the biblical god mandates for breaking a date with him on the sabbath. Thumbelina: Context my friend, context! In the OT there's an incident recorded where the man was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath but that man was OPENLY rebellious because the Israelites were actual witnesses to God's presence. If God did not get rid of such an arrogant, presumptuous person then others would have followed in his stead and that was a deterrent to others who may have wanted to do the same. If they had kept breaking the Sabbath then they would have become just like the surrounding Pagan nations. Actually, there have been lots of instances where that did happen, it was a cycle that the Israelites kept getting into. They would disobey God by breaking His commandments, they would end up being oppressed by the gentiles and they end up in slavery/bondage, they would then cry out to God for help by becoming meek, God rescues them and He prospers them then apathy sets in again and the cycle starts over again. What if there is a really debilitating virus that is going around in a community and your wife, and let's say her sisters, had a really aggressive strain of the virus and you were the only one that had a serum that could stabilize the disease and prolonged treatment will eventually eradicate the disease? The disease makes people irrational and even violent. What if all of a sudden one of your wife's sisters decided that she was not going to take the serum anymore and she eventually made her way in the community where she intended to kill as many people as she can and infect whomever she can? She is about to kill some people, should she be "taken out" in order to prevent a catastrophe? Sin is like that disease. Messiah needed to be born before all humans self destructed. Thumbelina said: Hey, men could have nullified a vow that a woman made TO GO-D or in the Lord's name, regarding sexual abstinence but that did not mean they still did not have to sleep on the couch. ShackledNoMore: I would think the biblical husband would simply forbid that in the spirit of family harmony. Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Thumbelina: Taking texts out of contexts in order to hang on to unbelief? There are texts in there that instructs husbands and wives to live peaceably with each other. In Eph 5:19,20 http://niv.scripturetext.com/ephesians/5-19.htm , God instructs Israelites to worship together and it INCLUDES families, husbands and wives; a family that worships/prays together stays together. Verse 21 http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-21.htm says "Submitting yourselves one to another ..." and one of the cross references for that verse is Phil 2:3 http://bible.cc/philippians/2-3.htm. Also, Eph 5:22-25 expounds what was said previously, that husbands and wives should submit to the Lord and to each other. You stopped reading too soon, look at Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" . More Godly instructions are found in other verses too: Ephesians 5:28 "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:33 "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." You do know that SOME Christian men try to take some of those texts from Eph 5 out of context too? They want to dominate their wives. There was one time I went to an evangelistic meeting and the Pastor/evangelist said that a man once told his wife that she needs to submit to him because it says in the bible that the husband is the head of the wife. The wife then told him 'Oh yeah? well if you're the head then I'm the neck for the neck can turn the head any. how. it. wants!' Apparently the wife made that feisty neck movement and snapped her fingers too, plus she punctuated her last 4 words by pausing between them, hence the reason I put periods between those words. *grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ShackledNoMore: Uh oh. I have bad news for you. You are going to think I am really disgusting now. Not only am I an atheist, but rabbit is one of my favorite foods! The truth is, rabbit is tasty and probably relatively healthy compared to most red meats. Thumbelina: Digusting? No. Crazy? Definitely. I think atheism, the sin, is disgusting but I love the atheists, the people. Apparently plenty of scavengers are tasty but that does not mean one should eat them. If they were healthy then God would have put them in the clean meat category but He didn't so ... .This planet is degenerating so even the clean meats are getting worse. God's original plan did not include killing animals for food. Thumbelina said: Here's a quote from a conversation on this subject: "Most scholars believe that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a burnt offering because she was human and that was forbidden; but what he did was offer her to the Lord like with a Nazarite vow... ShackledNoMore: If this were indeed true, and god were not the author of confusion, then he sure could have said just that (just as Nazarite vows were referenced elsewhere in the bible) rather than saying that Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering (as a euphemism for offering her with a Nazarite vow?). Thumbelina: It was not a euphemism for a Nazarite vow. The pastor mentioned that as a comparison. God uses the physical world to teach spiritual truths. He made the Israelites act out the plan of salvation via the Sanctuary service. He wanted to impress upon the minds of the people what His role will be in saving the human race and the sacrifices alluded to God's only begotten son laying down His life for sinners. God is not the author of confusion, it's His rebellious children that do not listen. ShackledNoMore: Obviously, Jepathat made an astoundingly, incomprehensibly stupid and foolish vow. Let's suppose I said to you, "Thumbelina, I really need $15. And if you send it to me, I promise you that I will chop off my little finger and give it to you." Would you think, "Gee, Shack really wants this, I'll give him the $15. It's too bad that he's obligated to chop off his little finger and give it to me now." What kind of a monster would that make you? In the book of Judges, biblegod was still directly intervening in the affairs of his people to some extent. He had any number of options to keep this from happening. He could have denied Jepathat his victory because he considered it sinful to offer his daughter as a human sacrifice. He could have intervened to stop things like he did with Abraham. He could have sent a goat out when Jepathat returned home. He could have done any of these things. He did not. He let Jepathat carry out his vow of murdering his own daughter because he vowed it to biblegod. Thumbelina said: First off, I won't say gee, that is a euphemism for Jesus. ShackledNoMore: No problem! Your use or non-use of the word "gee" doesn't affect the point being made. Thumbelina: I was just letting you know. Thumbelina said: Secondly I will think you are joking. ShackledNoMore: Well, while the analogy is fully contrived and it goes without saying that I would never do anything like that, I think it illustrates the point quite well. My promise would actually be a lot less insane than Jephthah's. Thumbelina: A lot of OT people were kind of loopy, they got excited and made stupid vows but God did not tell them to do it. Jeptha ASSUMED than an animal would come around the corner; he forgot that he does not know the future. Thumbelina said: Fourthly, I cannot put your finger back together but a Creator God can by just speaking, He can repair ears too ShackledNoMore: I am aware that you have not conceded that Jepathat sacrificed his daughter's life, despite wording to that effect that apologists try to reframe, but one thing is clear: she was not sacrificed and then resurrected! You claim that the christian god can grow back fingers and ears, but there has never been one case where that has actually happened. In fact, if you really want to convince me, you have a golden opportunity. Ask god to grow my father-in-law's amputated leg back. If he's walking around on a new leg in the morning, you will have convinced me. Thumbelina: Wow! I'm impressed, I usually get biases and deliberate misunderstandings in discussions with skeptics. I threw that in because I wanted to advertise that God can save even people who sacrificed their children and eventually repented, like Manasseh. *shrug* The bible records it and I believe it. Is your father-in-law an atheist? For the believer, God may allow them to live with disabilities (thorns in their flesh) and in this life they may have a rickety tent ( a sickly,damaged mortal body) but in the resurrection they would put on a building ( a new glorified body). By FAITH, the believer believes they will be healed eventually. Faith in God gives HOPE and peace. I'm sorry about your father-in-law's predicament. If he is an atheist and therefore "evolving" and since he is way more intelligent than ancient fish, then how come he can't WILL legs into existence? Apparently the fish did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 My problem has always been that I am smarter than most people I know including both my husbands and every single pastor, elder or house leader I ever met. I am hardly going to follow the instructions of a person who can not make decisions for me as well as I can. Many many christian men get right off the whole power thing, which is about as unchristian as you can get. And Thumbelina, if christians don't know how to treat others properly without direct instuctions from the bible they are pretty fucked up to start with. And since so many of them are, thats why I don't hang around them any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 If he is an atheist and therefore "evolving" and since he is way more intelligent than ancient fish, then how come he can't WILL legs into existence? Apparently the fish did. No, it did not. You obviously do not understand even the basics of evolution. And you complain that people misconstrue and misrepresent your Bible and your belief, yet you have no problem doing it yourself. Why? DNA, mutations, and evolution is well established and proven. That you claim that evolution is driven by a being's will, shows that you don't understand even the simplest principles that underlies biological life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So what about when the bible says god will never give a person anymore than they can bear? That being the case why do so many people commit suicide when they simply cannot take the pain of this world? Is it a lie then? Some people suffer from severe clinical depression and these are sometimes caused by genetic predispositions and chemical imbalances in the brain and sometimes these people may end up committing suicide before they could have gotten professional help. Only God knows what their connection with Him was and He will judge them accordingly. For those who let life's situations bring them down, it bespeaks a lack of communication between them and God. Believers NEED to pray and praise God and they NEED to meditate on His word so that they can shore up their faith for when the storms of life come.The bible describes people who went through despair, people like David, Elijah, and Joseph but their faith kept them going and Heaven is theirs. The 6th commandment says that "Thou shalt not kill" (i.e. murder) therefore God's children are NOT supposed to kill anyone INCLUDING themselves (suicide), be it immediate or in degrees (e.g. smoking cigarettes etc). P.S. NOTHING is wrong with getting professional help; God gave doctors their abilities.Professional care AND prayer can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 For those who let life's situations bring them down, it bespeaks a lack of communication between them and God. Believers NEED to pray and praise God and they NEED to meditate on His word so that they can shore up their faith for when the storms of life come.The bible describes people who went through despair, people like David, Elijah, and Joseph but their faith kept them going and Heaven is theirs. The 6th commandment says that "Thou shalt not kill" (i.e. murder) therefore God's children are NOT supposed to kill anyone INCLUDING themselves (suicide), be it immediate or in degrees (e.g. smoking cigarettes etc). Except when God commands his followers to kill, then it's okay. The Old Testament is full of it. History is full of it. People even today are burning and killing children in the name of Jesus. (It's true. Look into the witch hunts in Africa.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 My problem has always been that I am smarter than most people I know including both my husbands and every single pastor, elder or house leader I ever met. I am hardly going to follow the instructions of a person who can not make decisions for me as well as I can. Many many christian men get right off the whole power thing, which is about as unchristian as you can get. And Thumbelina, if christians don't know how to preat others properly without direct instuctions from the bible they are pretty fucked up to start with. And since so many of them are, thats why I don't hang around them any more. Hi Galien , yes a lot of women are smart and can be smarter than some men, I did say that if men are being sinful idiots then the Godly women then becomes the priests. Humans and Christians do have consciences but they are not perfect because of that sin nature we all have. Some people have no conscience at all, as my mother would say 'Dogs ate their conscience!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 If he is an atheist and therefore "evolving" and since he is way more intelligent than ancient fish, then how come he can't WILL legs into existence? Apparently the fish did. No, it did not. You obviously do not understand even the basics of evolution. And you complain that people misconstrue and misrepresent your Bible and your belief, yet you have no problem doing it yourself. Why? DNA, mutations, and evolution is well established and proven. That you claim that evolution is driven by a being's will, shows that you don't understand even the simplest principles that underlies biological life. Hi Ouroboros, I still pray for you and your family I don't believe in myths OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 So what about when the bible says god will never give a person anymore than they can bear? That being the case why do so many people commit suicide when they simply cannot take the pain of this world? Is it a lie then? Some people suffer from severe clinical depression and these are sometimes caused by genetic predispositions and chemical imbalances in the brain and sometimes these people may end up committing suicide before they could have gotten professional help. Only God knows what their connection with Him was and He will judge them accordingly. For those who let life's situations bring them down, it bespeaks a lack of communication between them and God. Believers NEED to pray and praise God and they NEED to meditate on His word so that they can shore up their faith for when the storms of life come.The bible describes people who went through despair, people like David, Elijah, and Joseph but their faith kept them going and Heaven is theirs. The 6th commandment says that "Thou shalt not kill" (i.e. murder) therefore God's children are NOT supposed to kill anyone INCLUDING themselves (suicide), be it immediate or in degrees (e.g. smoking cigarettes etc). You really are ignorant about so many things. Do you realise that the crap you just spouted above is what makes people suicide. There is NO ANSWER for those who suffer from depression in the bible. None. Zip. Zilch. So fucking what if people in the bible went though despair and went to heaven. Do you really think sucidal people give a flying fuck about that? How is the promise of heaven supposed to help people who feel so bad they don't want to even be alive anymore. Who cares what they "should" do? Clearly you have never been that distressed. What you are really saying to them is fuck off and pray about it, I don't care what you need or how you feel. Follow the robotic prescription for fixing everything and don't bother me with the fact you are not perfect. All you cre about are the rules and not the circumstances. It is because of chirstians exactly like you that I left christianity. You have the compassion and wisdom of a piece of copy paper. Stupid, stupid girl. What you need to be praying for is that at some point you work out how to pull your head out of your self centred, egotistical know all ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts